Thread: Intel Core2Duo

GPU is whats improtant for a game, not the CPU

Originally Posted by ninja9578

GPU is whats improtant for a game, not the CPU

That's cute

Originally Posted by Marvo

That's cute

I'm quite certain I know a lot more about it than you do. 90% of the cycles for games are graphics related. The graphics in games have to calculate millions of floating point precise vectors, then translate that into between 1 and 8 million pixels on the screen. Then extra shader passes are done, these are entirely GPU based operations. When a programmer writes a graphics heavy program, they fork it into usually one or two physics threads, an AI thread, and about a dozen graphics threads. The graphics threads run entirely on the GPU, they don't even have the same instruction set as the rest of the program. It's the reason that GPUs have a dozen cores, but CPUs only have between 2 and 8.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I'm quite certain I know a lot more about it than you do. 90% of the cycles for games are graphics related. The graphics in games have to calculate millions of floating point precise vectors, then translate that into between 1 and 8 million pixels on the screen. Then extra shader passes are done, these are entirely GPU based operations. When a programmer writes a graphics heavy program, they fork it into usually one or two physics threads, an AI thread, and about a dozen graphics threads. The graphics threads run entirely on the GPU, they don't even have the same instruction set as the rest of the program. It's the reason that GPUs have a dozen cores, but CPUs only have between 2 and 8.

I'm sure you know a lot about the technical aspects. What I do know, is that there are some more recent games out there, that are very physics intensive. A game like BF:BC2 for example would run much much better for me if I had a 3GHz quadcore, than just my silly 2.6GHz dual core. A game like Minecraft is also very CPU and RAM intensive. Of course, Minecraft is a special case, but it is worth mentioning.